Would Ralph Nader running hurt democrats?

[LZ1234]

Ralph Nader was on Bill Maher yesterday and said he might run as an independent - he will decide within 3 weeks. Do you think it will hurt the democratic party if he decides to run? I'm afraid he might be taking votes away from the democratic vote should he decide to run. Didn't he run and didn't this happen in the last presidential race?

[FreeperSlayer]

1. Duh!

Don't think he'll hurt the right.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. It's not really a vote for Bush...

It's more like just staying home.

[loudnclear]

39. If Ralph really loves America, he'll sit this one out!

Otherwise, he may as well be an enemy of the state.

[Sterling]

67. If we really love America

We will nominate someone who did not help Bush have his crusade. Otherwise it is wrong to assume we will have the support of people like Nader.

[LZ1234]

4. Guess I'm not as smart as you freepslayer!

You know it all

[RapidCreek]

54. Guess I'm not as smart as you freepslayer!

My how similar your method of discourse and subject of interest is to OKRAHNA's.

He said almost the same thing to me as you did to freepslayer..."sorry I guess I'm just not as smart as you are". Interestingly he said it in a post he started which has as its subject almost the exact same thing yours does!

It's good to know you two recognize the limit of your intellect and aren't afraid to admit when it's been reached.

I gotta give you credit though...you sure have managed to stir up the shit pretty well.

Thanks for the entertainment!!

RC

[LZ1234]

76. I'll have to explain it to you...

because apparently you didn't understand my sarcasm. When I posted a question and this person responded "Duh!", I felt it was undeserved. I was new to this site and this was one my first postings. I felt I was asking a legitimate question and didn't feel it was necessary for someone else to make their point by insulting me. Since then I have found that most other people on DU are respectful to one another. I will have to accept the fact there's always going to be those one or two people out there who find it necessary to belittle others.

[mindfulNJ]

2. what does history tell you?

remember 2000?:grr:

[LZ1234]

6. That's why I was asking...

I don't remember exactly all the details.

[rockymountaindem]

5. Of course

It will be bad for Democrats. He would suck votes away from the only liberal with a chance of winning for his selfish, egotistical aims. It would mean that the Democratic candidate would not be able to focus only on defeating Bush with ideas that appeal to almost everyone, but would also have to campaign to win the votes of those farther to the left who may otherwise vote for Nader. This would give the Republicans even more ammunition to use against our candidate than what they already may have. His running cost Al Gore a definitive victory in 2000. Nader says it wasn't his fault Gore "lost". Whatever, Ralph. He got almost 3,000,000 votes that may have otherwise gone to Gore, including enough votes in Florida to clearly deliver a Gore victory. I hope he sits down and shuts up this time.

Welcome to DU!

[onecitizen]

7. Yep bad,bad,bad for Dems...........

even though he claims otherwise. I usually do not mind Ralph but not THIS time! It is too important for him to be mucking around in it this time.

Please Ralph. I beg you. This time, put your ego on hold and STAY OUT OF IT!!!:evilfrown:

[CalebHayes]

8. Gore would be president if he had not have run in 2000

[PVnRT]

9. Not as much as 2000

When, in fact, it didn't really hurt as much as people like to pretend it did. I think there's a much larger sentiment going around this time that Bush has to be defeated, and I think that will pull in a lot of people who voted Nader in 2000 this November.

[elfin]

16. But still enough to hurt

He will suck away media time from our nominee and we need all the exposure we can get.

They (media) will portray Nader as a radical whose stands will "wreck the economy"- thereby forcing our nominee to be "non-Nader" and diluting the pro-environment message. Realize I am rambling - here is an example -

"And General Clark, how exactly do you differ from Ralph Nader on (insert issue here)?

If he agrees with Nader- then he too is a radical losing potential "swing" votes. If he disagrees, then he will be "soft on the environment", losing potential Green votes and making the "story" media will hype as the conflict between our nominee and Nader, rather than between him and Bush.

[Old and In the Way]

17. That's something I haven't considered.

You know monewy won't be a problem for Ralph....the RNC has plenty of that.

But the media could play along and promote him as the "alternative" candidate, bleeding off exposure for the Democratic nominee. While a substantial % of 2000 Nader voters won't make the same mistake again, he'll probably do best among the 1st time voters: younger, more idealistic, more naive voters...particularly if the media chooses to frame him as the "noble outsider" who offers the voter a real alternative to the 2 Party, corporate interests, blah, blah, blah.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Terwilliger]

19. you think more exposure from a biased media is a GOOD thing?

how does that work?

Like I said below, if Nader was in the race, then the Dem candidate (who the media would be trying to label as a radical leftist anyway) could point out that Nader's positions are to the left, while his own are more "moderate" You people love the idea of "moderate" so it should work out great.

[Old and In the Way]

21. Where did I say it would be a GOOD thing?

I do think corporate media intervention on covering Nader's campaign could be an expected tactic in the general election.

A frontal attack of negative media on the Democratic condidate would be easy to confront and would most likely backfire.

But a sudden interest in covering the Nader campaign this election cycle would be a perfect strategy for Karl and the SCLM to follow. Trumpet up Ralph's "refreshing" campaign as a viable alternative to politics as usual. Split the coverage 3 ways. This time Ralph will probably not telegraph his intent to focus his campaign in the states that poll closest in Republican/Democratic splits, though.

A Nader candidacy will probably only be effective with the political virgins voting in their 1st election, but his running certainly did hurt Bush in the last election. I'll bet we hear a lot of anti-draft rhetoric frm Ralph.

[Terwilliger]

27. Are you out of your Vulcan mind??

A frontal attack of negative media on the Democratic condidate would be easy to confront and would most likely backfire.

Are you serious? And what evidence, pray tell, do you have for that assumption?

[Old and In the Way]

33. Ter, let's assume that I am right on this assumption.

Now refute the rest of what I said.

Petty insults and misdirection are pretty lame responses.

[Terwilliger]

62. Ive gotten nothing but that from yuou on this subject, but just for fun...

why don't you assume I'm right.

[Sterling]

28. Yes why all the hate?

I keep hearing right wing dems don't need the left anyway. Can't seem to make up their minds.

[Old and In the Way]

34. Sorry Sterling, I don't see where my comments have anything to do

with Left/Right Democratic politics. It was about how a Nader candidacy would be played to drain indie/undecided votes from the Democratic nominee.

[Sterling]

58. I agree they would but that assumes

Those votes are owed to the potential nom. My point is they are not. If we elect a candidate that voted for IWR or patriot act we will lose those people and deserve to lose them IMHO.

I think hurling insults and threats at them only confirms their negitive view of the Dem party. (not you personally) We do have people here who think it is ok to tell people of the left we don't need them. Clearly that is wrong and stupid.

[Frances]

10. I think that if Nader runs

he will hurt Nader more than the Dems. Nader won't get many votes this time because it's clear that there is a difference between Dems and Repubs. Nader will just lose more credibility in my opinon.

[liberalnurse]

11. How much did he help Democrats in 2000?

Then again....



When you think of it.....maybe he won't hurt the party at all.....Look at the damage done so far........It is shameful.:think:

[The Zanti Regent]

14. He helped them as much as he helped my nephew

Nader put his pal Bush in the White House. Thanks to that asshole, my nephew lies in Walter Reed, a quadraplegic thanks to an Iraqui bullet. He's 23 and his life is ruined.

If Nader runs again to keep his pal in the White House, how many more sons and daughters will die?

How many will end up like my nephew?

Think about that!

[ulysses]

23. your nephew's fate rests on Nader?

I'm truly sorry to hear about his wound, but unless you're going to offer proof that Nader wanted the invasion of Iraq, your hyperbole doesn't hold much water.

[Sterling]

29. No it does not

And using the nephew in this argument seems a little tasteless IMHO.

[cushla_machree]

40. How is nadar

bush's pal?

[Sapphocrat]

12. Well, it wouldn't be good -- BUT...

...my gut says he wouldn't have a fraction of the impact he had in 2000.

Without getting into the whole Dem-Green feud (pleeeeeeease, whoever's still itching for a fight, let's not get into it, and say we did), I believe, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support my opinion, that a whole lotta folks who might entertain the idea of voting third-party are going to hold their noses and vote Dem, no matter what, come November.

Nader is an idiot if he runs... and this time, if I understand the situation correctly, the Greens aren't about to back him. (Green folks, is that right?)

In any case, the answer is yes -- it would be bad. But I don't think it would be catastrophic.

Btw, LZ1234, welcome to DU! :hi: And don't be intimidated for asking a reasonable question. :)

[Terwilliger]

15. Ralph is not seeking the GP nomination

and they're not seeking him

Whatever impact Nader has, it doesn't compare to the lack of impact from the Dems. It didn't in 2000, and it won't now.

[Terwilliger]

13. I think it would help

as the media will lambaste any Democrat as a raving lefty anyway, you might as well have someone further left to take the brunt of the criticism

[Sterling]

59. I am thinking it may ne good for our country

If not the party. I am strating to see that difference more clearly these days.

[Deja Q]

18. It might

With every Dem candidate being pounced on as being "radical left" by bushco* corporate fascist media, if Nader tried presenting himself as an independent - aka middle of the road - he would usurp votes.

The rest of this message is more or less directed at Nader-bashers, of which you appear not to be one of as you've approached this issue with maturity...: Was Gore trumpeted as being "mega-leftie" in Selection 2000 (where the problem there was Jeb and Kathie fucking with the system along with the US Supreme Court's gross display of PARTISANSHIP, with idiots making Nader out to be the judas goat of the piece, so don't let the angry folk around here try to blame it all on Nader, and they're easy to spot, fortunately... )

Let's face it: Any third party is going to draw votes away from the main parties. Perot, Buchanan, Nader - they all took votes away from BOTH Dems and Repubs. Given how small their numbers truly are, there's a reason why I'm royally pissed at people who blame it all on Nader.

And why aren't more Dems wishing that another Perot would come along to usurp repuke votes? :shrug:

Forgot to add: Welcome to DU! :yourock:

[Edge]

20. Yes it will.

A vote for Green is a vote for Bush. This election is too important to vote for ANY Green Party member if one were to run.

[Dr Fate]

22. It would be better for all if he helped us defeat Bush...

...but it's a free country. I would prefer it if he backed DEMS- I still think he would make a good EPA, FDA or FCC chairman...From there he could get a lot of good work done...

[Sterling]

30. It would also be good if we nominated a candidate

That would not send large numbers of people to the Greens. If that happens only the Dems are to blame.

[JanMichael]

24. No. Question: Why as an Independant and not a Green?

Did he piss them off too?

[Sterling]

26. Yes it will hurt and Kerry winning the nom might make him run.

It will wbe tough for me to vote for Kerry if Nader or another third party candidate I like runs.

[sleipnir]

37. Nader will certainly run if Kerry is nominated

And I'll also have a hard time figuring out who to vote for. I'm very much not in favor of voting for Kerry, but I'm not that big of a Nader fan either. We'll just have to see...

[LostInTheMaise]

48. And so may Dean

Kerry has not shown any respect for Dean and has decide to be pompus and displayed ownership of the Dem annointment. Dean will be pissed.

[JohnKleeb]

50. Dean hasnt been exactly graceful to Kerry either

"bushlite"
I believe he was also attacked when Kerry was recovering from colon cancer. Theres aminsity between those two but Kerry is not exclusively to blame neither is Dean for that matter.

[Sterling]

63. There are actually real differences

Not just which one plays nice. That is where the problem lies. Kerry is a no go for many of us if he gets the now you will really have to suck up to NASCAR dads for votes. That should be a truly pathetic sight to behold. I won't participate that mush is a given.

[Sterling]

61. I don't think Dean will splinter off but

I would vote for him over Kerry if he did.

[Sterling]

60. I can't vote for any IWR candidate.

I won't do it. I am not that shallow politically.

[LZ1234]

55. But why...

You know Nader will never win. It's wasting a vote. I understand you're standing on principles but at this time in our country's desperate need for change, wouldn't you rather vote on the side of practicality and results? Wouldn't you rather see a democrat win than keep our incompetent "leader" in?

[Sterling]

68. It is very practical

IWR people are not on our side. Period. The sooner we figure this out the better otherwise it is hopeless.

[iamjoy]

31. Nader would likely hurt

I'd rather not count votes again;(

BUT - and this is the main point, Nader would force the Democratic candidate to fight a war on two fronts (so to speak). Nader attacks our man for being too much like the Republicans, while the GOP attacks the Democrats as being too liberal. We can't win.

I remember some Green members saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore. I think Michael Moore pointed out the number of times Gore said "I agree with you" to Bush in the debates. Well, I'd like to know if Moore thinks there is a difference now.

[dansolo]

32. Will Ralph promise to attack Bush this time around?

Bush's record has gone against everything that Nader allegedly stood for in 2000.

[Terwilliger]

38. He attacked Bush in 2000 and has attacked him ever since

apparently, that information isn't well known at DU

[cprise]

36. Democrats want lockstep voting from the general public

while Republicans want lockstep voting from their members in Congress.

Just who is being clueless?

The press gives constant exposure to Pat Buchanan. But no one here considers that to be anti-Republican in an election year.

[Sterling]

64. Or John Buchanan.

He sure aint helpin W, lol.

[Doomsayer13]

41. Not as much as 2000

I think the Left has its eye on the Ball this year. No more Bush 2004!

[indie_jones]

43. yuck

I hate seeing people blame Nader. Gore ran a weak campaign in 2000 and lost the electoral vote as a result. He barely fought the vote, proving that he was as spineless as Nader claimed all along.

I'm an independent who just re-registered Dem to vote in the primary. Afterwards, you can bet your tushies I'm going back to being independent. I think the Democrats have, rather incredibly, not strengthened themselves in the past four years. The Dems SHOULD be far in the lead considering the nutjobs who are in office now. But they're not; the Dems are barely hanging on. The Democrats' failure to unify -- their failure to provide a solid counterpoint to the Bush administration -- is why there's such a public shift to the right. It's why the Dems lost the 2002 congressional elections, and it's why Arnie is top dog in California.

So if a poorly-funded "little" guy like Nader is REALLY a threat, it's because the Democratic party is rotting from within.

[corporatewhore]

44. people seem to forget kathrine harris voting machines and supreme court

for some reason they would rather blame nader

[Sterling]

65. It is also racist

Since over 90,000 blacks were wrongfully disenfranchised. The fact the party won't address that is reason enough to lose hope.

[LostInTheMaise]

49. Don't let middle America hear Dems being called "the left"

America is not ready for "the left" and any attempt to glorify leftist ideals will destroy any hopes the Dems have of ever gaining control again.

Leftist is still a very dirty title in America.

[Sterling]

66. Maybe where your from

Republican will get you snears in my area. Liking Bush might get you a punch in the face. Damn I am glad I don't live whereever you do.

[AVID]

42. yes

yes

[Democat]

45. Independent? Do the Greens hate him now?

In 2008 will he be running as a Republican?

[indie_jones]

46. he quit

Nader quit the Green Party.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1223-03.htm

"I think we're all a little bit disappointed," said Scott McLarty, a Green Party spokesman. "I suspect Mr. Nader would have gotten the nomination."

[FDRrocks]

53. Check yourself

Nader was never registered Green. Always as Independant.

[LostInTheMaise]

47. He and anyone else has the RIGHT to run for office

Democrats are not the rightful owners of all liberal votes. Blaming third parties for a loss is lame and exposes a lack of good message.

[The Night Owl]

57. Nader has the right to run, but he should also have the sense to drop out!

There was no reason whatsoever for Nader to take his candidacy all the way to the bitter end. He stole precious votes from Democrats. There is no way to deny that.

I will never forgive Nader for what he did to America in 2000.

Like I have said before... I have no problem with Nader running in 2004. I like the guy and I like his ideas. I do have a problem, however, with Nader staying in the race until the end.

[FDRrocks]

51. Nah...

The Democrats are centrist, they shouldn't worry about left voters.

[RapidCreek]

52. Does something in GD smell like Karl Roves Undershorts?

RC

[Sterling]

69. That's it blame it on Rove

Pretend that all the anti Iraq war people are freepers. That will get you somewhere I promise. :eyes:

[RapidCreek]

74. What I'm blaiming on Rove....and his self appointed minions

is pointless divisive threads like this one, populated with individuals that have different handles but share extremely low post counts and curiously similar responses, when backed into a corner.

IE "Sorry, Im not as smart as you".

RC

[Pobeka]

56. Under normal circumstances, I'd have nothing against Nader running.

But this time is different.

We now face a critical time in our Democracy. We around here know it as Black Box Voting.

If Bush is re-elected, the chances are much less that we'll ever see a law passed requiring a voter verified paper trail.

The Democratic candidates are quickly getting up to speed on this issue. With one of them in the White House, using the bully pulpit, I think the voting systems in this country can be re-vamped, and made much more legitimate and tamper-proof.

Because of this, this time, it must be ABB. Even if that means a more centrist Dem, or a progressive Dem with a more centrist administration. And Nader only hurts the electability of the Dem candidates, from a vote-taking point of view or from the campaign trail point of view.

If Nader really cares about this country, I'd like to see him sit this one out.

Once we get our balloting house in order, then I'll have nothing against Nader running, and pulling the debate back to the left.

[Sterling]

70. Normally I would say Nader running is a bad thing

But if we nominate a W enabler I think it is important someone run that gives us a real alternative. At least our voices will be heard.

[dontstopthere]

71. it is also important to note

that the greens are considering running a candidate as well. If that happened we would lose votes at twice the rate. I wish the Dems would court the GP so that we could get their votes. The GOP caters to the Religious Right no matter what, even though they aren't all that right-wing. I think we should cater to the leftwing.

[Pithlet]

72. Yes, but hopefully not as much as 2000

None of the Dem candidates are left enough for my taste. However, Bush in the office for 4 more years would be far FAR worse for this country than any of the Dem candidates.

Choice A: candidate who doesn't match my politics perfectly. Choice B: Bush, who will appoint Supreme Court Justices, harm the environment even further, kill more Americans in senseless wars, give even more tax breaks to the rich and killing the middle class and poor even further. To me, the choice is a no-brainer.

You cannot get around the fact that 3rd parties are spoilers in our country. Getting Bush out, IMO, should be the top priority for anyone who isn't on the right, from centrists on leftward. Doing anything to risk that not happening harms this country, principles be damned.

[peacetalksforall]

73. Forget about it Ralph...the country needs a person who

can see into the future and know that he can't split a vote in favor of a catastrophe. Jerk! Years of good work down the drain. Reputation at the bottom on my list especially in view of the investments he held at the time of his electioneering. Never ran under the Green Party.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

75. YES. Nader running would harm the frikkin' planet! ABB. n/t ok?